emergency rule in Minnesota

2002See also Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W. 859, 861 (1935) (setting forth the emergency rule). 3 .

2002See also Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W. 859, 861 (1935) (setting forth the emergency rule). 3 .

2012Louis Cnty., 295 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn.1980) (quoting Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W. 859, 861 (1935)).

1990Louis County, 295 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn.1980) (quoting Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W. 859, 861 (1935)).

2012Minder v. Peterson, 254 Minn. 82, 88 , 93 N.W.2d 699, 705 (1958).

2012Minder v. Peterson, 254 Minn. 82, 88 , 93 N.W.2d 699, 705 (1958).

2012Gran, 275 Minn. at 419 , 147 N.W.2d at 579 .

2012Gran, 275 Minn. at 419 , 147 N.W.2d at 579 .

1986See, e.g., Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244, 248-49 , 6 N.W.2d 793, 795-96 (1942) (trial court erred in instructing on the emergency rule where “[i]t seems obvious to us that the defendant * * * brought on the emergency by driving * * * at the speed he did with defective brakes”); Nelson v. Henning, 354 N.W.2d 35, 41 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (emergency rule instruction improper where evidence shows defendant “created its own situation of peril by knowingly failing to equip its vehicle with an effective emergency brake” and was therefore negligent as a matter of law).

1986See, e.g., Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244, 248-49 , 6 N.W.2d 793, 795-96 (1942) (trial court erred in instructing on the emergency rule where “[i]t seems obvious to us that the defendant * * * brought on the emergency by driving * * * at the speed he did with defective brakes”); Nelson v. Henning, 354 N.W.2d 35, 41 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (emergency rule instruction improper where evidence shows defendant “created its own situation of peril by knowingly failing to equip its vehicle with an effective emergency brake” and was therefore negligent as a matter of law).

2007See also Cervantes, 219 F.3d at 891-92 (holding initial entry of apartment to locate methamphetamine lab under the emergency exception was justified, but subsequent entry by investigator was not, given that “the risk of explosion had been defused”).

2007See also Cervantes, 219 F.3d at 891-92 (holding initial entry of apartment to locate methamphetamine lab under the emergency exception was justified, but subsequent entry by investigator was not, given that "the risk of explosion had been defused"). *789 When assessing the reasonableness of an emergency-aid search, the officer who conducts the search is imputed with knowledge of all facts known by other officers involved in the investigation, as long as the officers have some degree of communication between them.

2006State v. Halla-Poe, 468 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn.App.1991) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), and State v. Terrell, 283 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Minn.1979)).

2006State v. Halla-Poe, 468 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn.App.1991) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), and State v. Terrell, 283 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Minn.1979)).

2004See State v. Fitzgerald, 562 N.W.2d 288, 288 (Minn.1997) (state bears the burden of establishing the existence of an emergency justifying a warrantless entry under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51, 56 , 171 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1969) (upon challenge to a warrantless arrest, state has the burden of proving that the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment).

2004See State v. Fitzgerald, 562 N.W.2d 288, 288 (Minn.1997) (state bears the burden of establishing the existence of an emergency justifying a warrantless entry under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51, 56 , 171 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1969) (upon challenge to a warrantless arrest, state has the burden of proving that the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment).

2004See State v. Fitzgerald, 562 N.W.2d 288, 288 (Minn.1997) (state bears the burden of establishing the existence of an emergency justifying a warrantless entry under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51, 56 , 171 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1969) (upon challenge to a warrantless arrest, state has the burden of proving that the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment).

2004See State v. Fitzgerald, 562 N.W.2d 288, 288 (Minn.1997) (state bears the burden of establishing the existence of an emergency justifying a warrantless entry under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51, 56 , 171 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1969) (upon challenge to a warrantless arrest, state has the burden of proving that the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment).

1963Compare Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 398 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172, 176 , where this court approved the giving of an instruction on the emergency rule, saying: “* * * It appears to us that there may have been another alternative available. [The driver of an automobile which collided with a tractor] could, for example, have continued to apply the brakes rather than release them and attempt to go around the tractor.

1963Compare Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 398 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172, 176 , where this court approved the giving of an instruction on the emergency rule, saying: “* * * It appears to us that there may have been another alternative available. [The driver of an automobile which collided with a tractor] could, for example, have continued to apply the brakes rather than release them and attempt to go around the tractor.

2002See, e.g., Minder v. Peterson, in which this court held: Where the evidence is such that the jury may find either way on the question of whether a litigant has created an emergency, it is proper to instruct the jury on the emergency rule with directions that it is to be applied only if the jury finds that the emergency was not created by the one who seeks to invoke the rule. 254 Minn. 82, 88 , 93 N.W.2d 699, 705 (1958) (citations omitted); see also Emerson v. Eystad, 288 Minn. 401, 406 , 181 N.W.2d 337, 339 (1970); Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 398 , 95 N.W.2d 172, 175-76 (1959).

2002See, e.g., Minder v. Peterson, in which this court held: Where the evidence is such that the jury may find either way on the question of whether a litigant has created an emergency, it is proper to instruct the jury on the emergency rule with directions that it is to be applied only if the jury finds that the emergency was not created by the one who seeks to invoke the rule. 254 Minn. 82, 88 , 93 N.W.2d 699, 705 (1958) (citations omitted); see also Emerson v. Eystad, 288 Minn. 401, 406 , 181 N.W.2d 337, 339 (1970); Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 398 , 95 N.W.2d 172, 175-76 (1959).

2001Whether the person uses "reasonable care commensurate with the sudden peril ⅜ * * is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” Brady v. Kroll, 244 Minn. 525, 530 , 70 N.W.2d 354, 358 (1955) (citations omitted).

2001Whether the person uses "reasonable care commensurate with the sudden peril ⅜ * * is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” Brady v. Kroll, 244 Minn. 525, 530 , 70 N.W.2d 354, 358 (1955) (citations omitted).

1995See e.g., State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 223 (Minn.1992); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).

1993See State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 223-24 (Minn.1992). 2.

1986Daugherty v. May Brothers Company, 265 Minn. 310, 318 , 121 N.W.2d 594, 599-600 (1963) (quoting Annot., 80 A.L.R.2d 5 , 15-17 (1961) (footnotes omitted)).

1986Daugherty v. May Brothers Company, 265 Minn. 310, 318 , 121 N.W.2d 594, 599-600 (1963) (quoting Annot., 80 A.L.R.2d 5 , 15-17 (1961) (footnotes omitted)).

1970We said in Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 241 Minn. 79, 84 , 62 N. W. (2d) 492 , 496: “The so-called emergency rule is but a special application of *407 the general standard of reasonable care.

1970We said in Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 241 Minn. 79, 84 , 62 N. W. (2d) 492 , 496: “The so-called emergency rule is but a special application of *407 the general standard of reasonable care.

2001Zickrick v. Strathern, 211 Minn. 329, 331 , 1 N.W.2d 134, 136 (1941) (stating the emergency rule operates only to relieve a driver from liability for errors in judgment that an ordinarily prudent person might make under similar circumstances).

2001Zickrick v. Strathern, 211 Minn. 329, 331 , 1 N.W.2d 134, 136 (1941) (stating the emergency rule operates only to relieve a driver from liability for errors in judgment that an ordinarily prudent person might make under similar circumstances).

2007Id.

2007Id.

2018See , e.g. , United States v. Stafford , 416 F.3d 1068 , 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Cady but applying the "emergency doctrine"); State v. Deneui , 775 N.W.2d 221 , 237 (S.D. 2009) (discussing "courts [that] apply[ ] the community caretaker exception but us[e] a test applicable to the emergency doctrine or the emergency aid doctrine").

2012Judge’s Ass’n, Minnesota Practice-Jury Instruction Guides, Civil, CIVJIG 25.16 (5th ed.2006) (noting that the emergency rule only applies to those perils not caused by the party requesting the instruction); see also Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 134 , 189 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1971).

2012Judge’s Ass’n, Minnesota Practice-Jury Instruction Guides, Civil, CIVJIG 25.16 (5th ed.2006) (noting that the emergency rule only applies to those perils not caused by the party requesting the instruction); see also Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 134 , 189 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1971).